Do you believe in God?

[TRLWNC7396]

I'm yet to ever see anyone come up with a meaningful description of what a soul is. It's always just vibes and hand waving.

I have to agree. It's like describing God. How do you do that?

But I believe there is more to us than JUST a body. Call it what you will.

 

[McLaren]

I'm yet to ever see anyone come up with a meaningful description of what a soul is. It's always just vibes and hand waving.

If there was ever better proof of this, it's the use of "soul" in the GT section.

 

[Danoff]

But I believe there is more to us than JUST a body. Call it what you will.

Consciousness?

 

[Liquid]

But I believe there is more to us than JUST a body. Call it what you will.

Much like almost everything to do with religious beliefs in this thread, you can believe it no problem but telling us it's true or it's a fact without evidence isn't acceptable.

 

[TheCracker]

Religion wants you to believe that there is more to life then just 75* years on this earth. It wants you to believe in afterlifes, reincarnation, heaven and hell and all the rest of the supernatural and pseudoscience stuff. Why? because it does very little to improve people's lives whilst they're on this planet. It has to try to offer hope in what comes after death, as it's the only ace it holds. The concept of a 'soul' is just an extention of that line of thinking.


*if you're lucky/unlucky

 

[Imari]

I have to agree. It's like describing God. How do you do that?

But I believe there is more to us than JUST a body. Call it what you will.

If you can't even begin to describe what something is, what possible basis could you have for saying that thing exists? Not to mention that it requires that you believe that this thing exists, but that you don't have enough curiosity to even attempt to interrogate what it is or try to understand it in any way.

If you think that's similar to describing God, what does that say about the existence of God and your interest in Him?

Religion wants you to believe that there is more to life then just 75* years on this earth. It wants you to believe in afterlifes, reincarnation, heaven and hell and all the rest of the supernatural and pseudoscience stuff. Why? because it does very little to improve people's lives whilst they're on this planet. It has to try to offer hope in what comes after death, as it's the only ace it holds.


*if you're lucky/unlucky

I don't know that this is entirely fair. Back when government and religion were essentially the same thing, stuff like the afterlife and divine punishment are valuable tools to encourage civil behaviour.

If people believe that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for doing good deeds, they're more likely to do good deeds. Some people see the value of being nice to other people in and of itself, but lots don't and some encouragement couldn't go astray. The same for negative behaviours, if you believe that there's a supreme being that will punish you eventually regardless if you're caught or not it might give some people pause.

A lot of weird religious stuff like this can be understood in the form of primitive society building and governance. It's far from perfect, but it's comprehensible. Particularly in times where writing and literacy aren't exactly widespread, having laws codified into stories makes them easier to remember and to grok for the common man.

 

[TheCracker]

I don't know that this is entirely fair. Back when government and religion were essentially the same thing, stuff like the afterlife and divine punishment are valuable tools to encourage civil behaviour.

If people believe that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for doing good deeds, they're more likely to do good deeds. Some people see the value of being nice to other people in and of itself, but lots don't and some encouragement couldn't go astray. The same for negative behaviours, if you believe that there's a supreme being that will punish you eventually regardless if you're caught or not it might give some people pause.

A lot of weird religious stuff like this can be understood in the form of primitive society building and governance. It's far from perfect, but it's comprehensible. Particularly in times where writing and literacy aren't exactly widespread, having laws codified into stories makes them easier to remember and to grok for the common man.

Oh sure. I'm pretty certain i've expressed the same sentiment somewhere in the depths of this very thread at some point.

The point that i was trying to make is that the idea of having a soul that lives on when you die is an extension of religion's concepts of some aspect of a life existing, or carrying on, after death. I'm pretty sure its these religious beliefs that sparked people to wonder about 'souls' and how a person's essence can't just cease to exist the moment the body dies.

 

[Famine]

You yourself are the perfect proof, more specifically your very own consciousness is all the proof you need.

How do you prove that someone else has consciousness - and therefore, by your assertion, a soul?

 

[Ghost Lap]

How do you prove that someone else has consciousness - and therefore, by your assertion, a soul?

Ask yourself this question, does the soul exist? Now ask yourself does consciousness exist? If so, how do you know that consciousness exists?

It's the same question basically, I can only prove that someone else has consciousness to the same extent that I can prove to anyone else that I have consciousness. It's just one of those things that you just know, you know?

 

[Liquid]

Ask yourself this question, does the soul exist? Now ask yourself does consciousness exist? If so, how do you know that consciousness exists?

No, you were asked a question first. Don't avoid it or admit that you can't answer it.

 

[Famine]

Ask yourself this question, does the soul exist?

Why? It's your assertion that it does and that it's proven by your own consciousness. I'm asking you a question based on this assertion, not asking you to ask me questions about your assertion.

I can only prove that someone else has consciousness to the same extent that I can prove to anyone else that I have consciousness.

So... you cannot?

And since you've tied consciousness to "soul", you cannot prove that others have souls - nor to others that you have one - either.

 

[Danoff]

I don't think I'm comfortable with the idea of tying the religious concept of the soul to consciousness. Consciousness is likely an emergent property of a group of neurons, and at least some form of it can likely be demonstrated. Maybe not in the manner that is being discussed for the soul, but some form of proof of neuron firing patterns of combinations. The soul is not something that religious people would claim is an emergent property of a large group of neurons, but it is the perception of consciousness that gives people confidence in the existence of a soul.

 

[Imari]

It's just one of those things that you just know, you know?

It really isn't, and that you think that this is somehow an answer shows how much thought you've put into this.

I don't think I'm comfortable with the idea of tying the religious concept of the soul to consciousness. Consciousness is likely an emergent property of a group of neurons, and at least some form of it can likely be demonstrated. Maybe not in the manner that is being discussed for the soul, but some form of proof of neuron firing patterns of combinations. The soul is not something that religious people would claim is an emergent property of a large group of neurons, but it is the perception of consciousness that gives people confidence in the existence of a soul.

Indeed. We can explain what we mean by consciousness, what it's properties seem to be, and so on. The mechanics might not be solidly understood, but people have enough of a handle on the general parameters of the phenomenon that meaningful questions can be asked about it and attempts made to figure out the answers through logic, observation or experimentation.

A soul... just is. Until someone can actually put some definition around what it is or does or looks like, it's about as useful an idea as male bovine mammaries.

 

[Ghost Lap]

Indeed. We can explain what we mean by consciousness, what it's properties seem to be, and so on.

A soul... just is. Until someone can actually put some definition around what it is or does or looks like, it's about as useful an idea as male bovine mammaries.

Please then explain to me in full detail, what is consciousness and what does it look like?

What do you mean by the word "consciousness" and what do it's properties seem to be?

 

[Liquid]

Please then explain to me in full detail, what is consciousness and what does it look like?

What do you mean by the word "consciousness" and what do it's properties seem to be?

You brought it up.

You yourself are the perfect proof, more specifically your very own consciousness is all the proof you need.

 

[Ghost Lap]

You brought it up.

There's no way I could possibly proof the existence of consciousness in a physical platform, whether it be my consciousness or yours. I've already said that whatever it is, consciousness, the soul, conscious energy etc, it's some form of the unseeable and immaterial.

Yet we somehow know that its very much real, how so? Because it's what "I" really am, its what "you" really are underneath all the human layers you currently wear. It's the very thing that I am communing with and trying to get across to right now as I type these words into this computer.

We are energetic beings communicating to one another through the physical form through the medium of words and language, yet at a deeper level what we really are is beyond any words or language. The best we can come up with to try and get across this idea is by using terms such as consciousness, the soul etc. But what it truly is that we are attempting to describe doesn't have a name or label, it simply just is what it is.

 

[TheCracker]

Our brains are a meat computer and our consciousness is the operating system that runs on it. Once the computer bricks the OS no longer exists either. Religion just tells you you're more special than that, when the truth is you're not.

 

[Exorcet]

We are energetic beings communicating to one another through the physical form through the medium of words and language

You're not going to get anywhere trying to communicate with someone who doesn't have a physical form. As far as can be seen, consciousness traces back to the brain, nowhere else.

What does the soul add to the picture? What does a person need a soul to do? If that can't be answered, then a soul is not necessary for a person to exist and probably doesn't exist itself.

 

[Danoff]

There's no way I could possibly proof the existence of consciousness in a physical platform, whether it be my consciousness or yours. I've already said that whatever it is, consciousness, the soul, conscious energy etc, it's some form of the unseeable and immaterial.

Everyone claiming that they're conscious and behaving as though they are is evidence that consciousness exists. Consciousness is an emergent property of the structure of your brain. It is the abstraction layer that our brain uses to better anticipate prey and predator, to better use tools and find shelter, avoid pain and seek pleasure, and essentially keep ourselves alive long enough to procreate and care for young. Evidence of consciousness is found by talking to any healthy human over age, roughly, 2 years old, and is easily seen as a product of natural selection and brain biology. We can even see it functioning to some extent in MRI imaging as different regions of the brain activate to use the abstraction layer to problem solve, recall, or stimulate responses.

Where's your soul? I don't think you think the soul is an emergent property of cells, nor is it a product of natural selection or biology. These terms are not fungible.

Edit:

Don't interpret the above to mean that a claim of something is evidence that it's true. In this case the claim itself is demonstrating that the phenomenon exists because the phenomenon is used to make the claim.

 

[Ghost Lap]

Our brains are a meat computer and our consciousness is the operating system that runs on it. Once the computer bricks the OS no longer exists either. Religion just tells you you're more special than that, when the truth is you're not.

In my view I'd say our bodies/brains are the meat computer, the human mind the OS and consciousness or soul the electricity that runs the whole thing in the first place, and from a physical standpoint alone I'd say the nature of electricity seems pretty supernatural to me.

 

[Liquid]

and from a physical standpoint alone I'd say the nature of electricity seems pretty supernatural to me.

That doesn't mean that it is.

 

[Danoff]

In my view I'd say our bodies/brains are the meat computer, the human mind the OS and consciousness or soul the electricity that runs the whole thing in the first place, and from a physical standpoint alone I'd say the nature of electricity seems pretty supernatural to me.

That's because you interact with it less obviously every day than other forces. Lightning has long been associated with the supernatural. Thunderstorms were an early fear for humans and felt as though god from above was casting holy energy down to smite the wicked on Earth. But your lack of experience with electricity does not mean that it doesn't function predictably. Your computer uses electricity to great effect, and it doesn't have a soul and is not supernatural. If you unplug your computer from the wall it dies, just like your brain when you stop eating or breathing.

Magnetism (integrally related to electricity) is even less instinctually familiar to humans and feels even more like magic.

 

[TheCracker]

In my view I'd say our bodies/brains are the meat computer, the human mind the OS and consciousness or soul the electricity that runs the whole thing in the first place, and from a physical standpoint alone I'd say the nature of electricity seems pretty supernatural to me.

The electricity, the fuel, is the nutrients we get from our food and drink and the oxygen from the air we breathe.

 

[Ghost Lap]

The electricity, the fuel, is the nutrients we get from our food and drink and the oxygen from the air we breathe.

Uh huh, and where exactly does the energy we harness from food and drink originate from. Does the food produce it's own energy, does the physical energy produce itself?

If you unplug your computer from the wall it dies, just like your brain when you stop eating or breathing.

Just like if you unplug consciousness from the body, the body dies but the consciousness or energy or electricity that was giving life to the body/computer in the first place continues on.

 

[Danoff]

Uh huh, and where exactly does the energy we harness from food and drink originate from. Does the food produce it's own energy, does the physical energy produce itself?

Ultimately from fusion within the sun. It is turned into chemical energy and stored within food. This is basic stuff.

Just like if you unplug consciousness from the body, the body dies but the consciousness or energy or electricity that was giving life to the body/computer in the first place continues on.

Kindof... not in the way that you think.

Your body consumes low entropy energy. That's not to say that it destroys it, what it does is convert low entropy energy to high entropy energy, and from that conversion the body can produce work. Some of this work may produce some level of low entropy energy. For example if your body stores fat cells, it is true that those fat cells continue to exist after you die, and they're relatively low entropy, but get consumed by other organisms and used to produce work as well. Much of the low entropy energy you consume through your life gets turned into high entropy energy such as heat. This energy is harder to tap to perform work. And so you need to replace it again with low entropy energy by eating some more.

If the energy that was in your brain lived forever, you would not need to eat to live. Your energy is lost - in many forms including via heat. This is the way of all organisms and basically anything that produces physical work.

So if you mean that the energy in your body lives forever because you made some fat (under your skin in various places or in your skull), and that fat exists after you die and is consumed by other organisms, ultimately that energy is dissipated as essentially unusable high entropy heat. In that sense, the energy balance of the universe stays the same, but the culmination of this is often referred to as the heat death of the universe. The transition from a universe of pockets of low entropy highly organized energy that can be tapped to produce work to a relatively uniform universe with dissipated energy that cannot be harnessed to produce work - a universe in which nothing happens.

Your consciousness is not the energy itself. The energy itself gets used and dissipated and replaced by your body. Your consciousness is that abstract processing layer that your brain creates with this energy to process information effectively. That part stops as soon as your brain can no longer do the work to produce it (because it does take work to produce). So when you stop eating and breathing, your consciousness stops. Your consciousness does not live on in the form of dissipated heat or fatty tissue.

You need a basic understanding of energy and how the body works to be able to not fall for this kind of pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo about your consciousness living on in the form of energy.

 

[Exorcet]

Just like if you unplug consciousness from the body, the body dies but the consciousness or energy or electricity that was giving life to the body/computer in the first place continues on.

You can power a dead body with some salt:

I assume that fish lost any soul it might have had upon being cut up, but it can still move on its own just through chemistry and physics.

Electricity isn't a great analogue to a soul anyway. @Danoff already went into some depth, but electricity is just moving electrons. It's all physical and nothing mysterious.

 

[Liquid]

You can power a dead body with some salt

Luigi Galvani, of Galvanisation notoriety, famously did something similar with dead frog legs and electricity, making them twitch.

 

[Famine]

And, infamously, severed, raw octopus tentacles writhe with the application of soy sauce - sometimes resulting in the death of the person consuming them - and as octopodes have a neural net rather than a central nervous systems, there's no get-out about brain function either.

Octopodes in fact demonstrate considerable intelligence and certainly have consciousness.

Do they have souls, and do they get into heaven/hell (the latter presumably after murdering a diner)?

 

[Ghost Lap]

You can power a dead body with some salt:

I assume that fish lost any soul it might have had upon being cut up, but it can still move on its own just through chemistry and physics.

Electricity isn't a great analogue to a soul anyway. @Danoff already went into some depth, but electricity is just moving electrons. It's all physical and nothing mysterious.

But the body itself is what you would consider to be dead and not alive is it not? I don't see any sign of life or consciousness in the example of this fish.

 

[Exorcet]

But the body itself is what you would consider to be dead and not alive is it not? I don't see any sign of life or consciousness in the example of this fish.

You said before:

"Just like if you unplug consciousness from the body, the body dies but the consciousness or energy or electricity that was giving life to the body/computer in the first place continues on."

I agree that the fish isn't conscious, it has no brain since the body was severed from it. However the flailing that it does is similar to that of a living fish despite the fish being in a state that wouldn't not be conductive to having a soul (you'll have to confirm that since you're the one advocating for souls). It is also expending energy purely through physical processes (salt is causing neurons to fire). What remains of the fish is working essentially as it was when the fish was whole. There doesn't seem to be any need for a soul to create a functioning creature or the appearance of life.